Vol 8, No 1 (2017)
Review paper
Published online: 2017-06-02

open access

Page views 914
Article views/downloads 2035
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Current state of knowledge about digital pathology

Monika Prochorec-Sobieszek1, Anna Szumera-Ciećkiewicz1
Hematologia 2017;8(1):1-11.

Abstract

In recent years, dynamic technological progress has been made, including the introduction of innovative solutions based on digital imaging in the field of pathomorphology. “Virtual microscopy” includes creating, viewing, managing, sharing, analyzing, and interpreting digital images of conventional microscope glass slides (WSI whole slide imaging). WSI systems, along with digital consulting platforms, are used in education, research, telepathology, teleconsultation, and routine diagnostics. Moreover, these systems provide user-friendly, fast and interactive sharing of digital images of microscopic specimens. Often, the development of the system allows integration with other medical IT systems. Applications that include image analysis and computer-assisted diagnosis facilitate the standardization of research results and support diagnostic accuracy. Virtual microscopy has many advantages, but it must be kept in mind that its limitations include high investment in equipment and infrastructure, the standardization of the quality of the digital images obtained, and the numerous concerns of pathomorphologists prior to its use in routine diagnostics.

References

  1. Pantanowitz L, Valenstein PN, Evans AJ, et al. Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform. 2011; 2: 36.
  2. Leong FJ, Leong AS. Digital photography in anatomical pathology. J Postgrad Med. 2004; 50(1): 62–69.
  3. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Van Diest PJ. Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology. 2012; 61(1): 1–9.
  4. Farahani N, Parwani AV, Pantanowitz L. Whole slide imaging in pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2015; 7: 23–33.
  5. Wiley CA, Murdoch G, Parwani A, et al. Interinstitutional and interstate teleneuropathology. J Pathol Inform. 2011; 2: 21.
  6. Evans AJ, Chetty R, Clarke BA, et al. Primary frozen section diagnosis by robotic microscopy and virtual slide telepathology: the University Health Network experience. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(8): 1070–1081.
  7. Gifford AJ, Colebatch AJ, Litkouhi S, et al. Remote frozen section examination of breast sentinel lymph nodes by telepathology. ANZ J Surg. 2012; 82(11): 803–808.
  8. Yagi Y, Gilbertson JR. Digital imaging in pathology: the case for standardization. J Telemed Telecare. 2005; 11(3): 109–116.
  9. Wilbur DC. Digital cytology: current state of the art and prospects for the future. Acta Cytol. 2011; 55(3): 227–238.
  10. Park S, Pantanowitz L, Parwani AV. Digital imaging in pathology. Clin Lab Med. 2012; 32(4): 557–584.
  11. Chlipala E, Elin J, Eichhorn O, et al. Archival and retrieval in digital pathology systems. Digital Pathology Association. 2011: 1–10.
  12. Huisman A, Looijen A, van den Brink SM, et al. Creation of a fully digital pathology slide archive by high-volume tissue slide scanning. Hum Pathol. 2010; 41(5): 751–757.
  13. Weinstein RS. Innovations in medical imaging and virtual microscopy. Hum Pathol. 2005; 36(4): 317–319.
  14. Teodorovic I, Isabelle M, Carbone A, et al. TuBaFrost 6: virtual microscopy in virtual tumour banking. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(18): 3110–3116.
  15. Weinstein RS. Prospects for telepathology. Hum Pathol. 1986; 17(5): 433–434.
  16. Baak JP, van Diest PJ, Meijer GA. Experience with a dynamic inexpensive video-conferencing system for frozen section telepathology. Anal Cell Pathol. 2000; 21(3-4): 169–175.
  17. Rojo MG, García GB, Mateos CP, et al. Critical comparison of 31 commercially available digital slide systems in pathology. Int J Surg Pathol. 2006; 14(4): 285–305.
  18. Hipp JD, Fernandez A, Compton CC, et al. Why a pathology image should not be considered as a radiology image. J Pathol Inform. 2011; 2: 26.
  19. Stathonikos N, Veta M, Huisman A, et al. Going fully digital: perspective of a Dutch academic pathology lab. J Pathol Inform. 2013; 4: 15.
  20. Glatz-Krieger K, Spornitz U, Spatz A, et al. Factors to keep in mind when introducing virtual microscopy. Virchows Arch. 2006; 448(3): 248–255.
  21. Treanor D, Jordan-Owers N, Hodrien J, et al. Virtual reality powerwall versus conventional microscope for viewing pathology slides: an experimental comparison. Histopathology. 2009; 55(3): 294–300.
  22. Tuominen VJ, Isola J. The application of JPEG2000 in virtual microscopy. J Digit Imaging. 2009; 22(3): 250–258.
  23. Feldman M. Whole slide imaging in pathology: what is holding us back? Pathol Lab Med Int. 2015; 7: 35–38.
  24. Randell R, Ruddle RA, Mello-Thoms C, et al. Virtual reality microscope versus conventional microscope regarding time to diagnosis: an experimental study. Histopathology. 2013; 62(2): 351–358.
  25. Thorstenson S, Molin J, Lundström C. Implementation of large-scale routine diagnostics using whole slide imaging in Sweden: digital pathology experiences 2006–2013. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5(1): 14.
  26. Pantanowitz L, Wiley CA, Demetris A, et al. Experience with multimodality telepathology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. J Pathol Inform. 2012; 3: 45.
  27. Al Habeeb A, Evans A, Ghazarian D. Virtual microscopy using whole-slide imaging as an enabler for teledermatopathology: A paired consultant validation study. J Pathol Inform. 2012; 3: 2.
  28. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, et al. Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol. 2012; 65(2): 152–158.
  29. Nielsen PS, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J, et al. Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum Pathol. 2010; 41(12): 1770–1776.
  30. Leinweber B, Massone C, Kodama K, et al. Teledermatopathology: a controlled study about diagnostic validity and technical requirements for digital transmission. Am J Dermatopathol. 2006; 28(5): 413–416.
  31. Massone C, Soyer HP, Lozzi GP, et al. Feasibility and diagnostic agreement in teledermatopathology using a virtual slide system. Hum Pathol. 2007; 38(4): 546–554.
  32. Koch LH, Lampros JN, Delong LK, et al. Randomized comparison of virtual microscopy and traditional glass microscopy in diagnostic accuracy among dermatology and pathology residents. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(5): 662–667.
  33. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Nap M, et al. Whole slide images as a platform for initial diagnostics in histopathology in a medium-sized routine laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2012; 65(12): 1107–1111.
  34. Campbell WS, Hinrichs SH, Lele SM, et al. Whole slide imaging diagnostic concordance with light microscopy for breast needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(8): 1713–1721.
  35. House JC, Henderson-Jackson EB, Johnson JO, et al. Diagnostic digital cytopathology: are we ready yet? J Pathol Inform. 2013; 4: 28.
  36. Kaplan KJ. Telecytopathology for immediate evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010; 118(3): 115–118.
  37. Fine JL, Grzybicki DM, Silowash R, et al. Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2008; 39(4): 564–572.
  38. Lloyd MC, Allam-Nandyala P, Purohit CN, et al. Using image analysis as a tool for assessment of prognostic and predictive biomarkers for breast cancer: how reliable is it? J Pathol Inform. 2010; 1: 29.
  39. Minot DM, Kipp BR, Root RM, et al. Automated cellular imaging system III for assessing HER2 status in breast cancer specimens: development of a standardized scoring method that correlates with FISH. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009; 132(1): 133–138.
  40. Veta M, van Diest PJ, Willems SM, et al. Assessment of algorithms for mitosis detection in breast cancer histopathology images. Med Image Anal. 2015; 20(1): 237–248.
  41. DiFranco MD, O'Hurley G, Kay EW, et al. Ensemble based system for whole-slide prostate cancer probability mapping using color texture features. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2011; 35(7-8): 629–645.
  42. Samsi S, Krishnamurthy AK, Gurcan MN. An efficient computational framework for the analysis of whole slide images: application to follicular lymphoma immunohistochemistry. J Comput Sci. 2012; 3(5): 269–279.
  43. Sertel O, Kong J, Shimada H, et al. Computer-aided prognosis of neuroblastoma on whole-slide images: classification of stromal development. Pattern Recognit. 2009; 42(6): 1093–1103.
  44. Yeh FC, Parwani AV, Pantanowitz L, et al. Automated grading of renal cell carcinoma using whole slide imaging. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5(1): 23.
  45. Lu H, Papathomas TG, van Zessen D, et al. Automated selection of hotspots (ASH): enhanced automated segmentation and adaptive step finding for Ki67 hotspot detection in adrenal cortical cancer. Diagn Pathol. 2014; 9: 216.
  46. Akakin HC, Gurcan MN. Content-based microscopic image retrieval system for multi-image queries. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2012; 16(4): 758–769.
  47. Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic DM, et al. Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol. 2006; 37(3): 322–331.
  48. Pantanowitz L, Dickinson K, Evans AJ, et al. American Telemedicine Association clinical guidelines for telepathology. J Pathol Inform. 2014; 5(1): 39.
  49. Pantanowitz L, Sinard JH, Henricks WH, et al. College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137(12): 1710–1722.
  50. Dee FR, Meyerholz DK. Teaching medical pathology in the twenty-first century: virtual microscopy applications. J Vet Med Educ. 2007; 34(4): 431–436.
  51. Heidger PM, Dee F, Consoer D, et al. Integrated approach to teaching and testing in histology with real and virtual imaging. Anat Rec. 2002; 269(2): 107–112.
  52. Van Es SL, Kumar RK, Pryor WM, et al. Virtual microscopy for learning and assessment in pathology. J Pathol. 2004; 204(5): 613–618.
  53. Hipp JD, Lucas DR, Emmert-Buck MR, et al. Digital slide repositories for publications: lessons learned from the microarray community. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011; 35(6): 783–786.
  54. Hipp JD, Sica J, McKenna B, et al. The need for the pathology community to sponsor a whole slide imaging repository with technical guidance from the pathology informatics community. J Pathol Inform. 2011; 2: 31.
  55. Mroz P, Parwani AV, Kulesza P. Central pathology review for phase III clinical trials: the enabling effect of virtual microscopy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137(4): 492–495.



Hematology in Clinical Practice